Transcript Choosing the Technology for the International Linear Collider Major Technical Decision

The Art and Science of Making a
Major Technical Decision
--------------------
Choosing the Technology for the
International Linear Collider
Barry Barish
Caltech
RPM - LBNL
7-Oct-04
Why ITRP?
• Two parallel developments over the past few years (the
science & the technology)
– The precision information from LEP and other data have pointed
to a low mass Higgs; Understanding electroweak symmetry
breaking, whether supersymmetry or an alternative, will require
precision measurements.
– There are strong arguments for the complementarity between a
~0.5-1.0 TeV LC and the LHC science.
– Designs and technology demonstrations have matured on two
technical approaches for an e+e- collider that are well matched to
our present understanding of the physics. (We note that a Cband option could have been adequate for a 500 GeV machine, if
NLC/GLC and TESLA were not deemed mature designs).
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
2
Electroweak Precision Measurements
Winter 2003
6
theory uncertainty
(5)
had =
0.027610.00036
0.027470.00012
W ithout NuTeV
4
LEP results strongly point
to a low mass Higgs and
an energy scale for new
physics < 1TeV
2
0
Excluded
20
Preliminary
100
400
mH GeV
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
3
Why ITRP?
• Two parallel developments over the past few years (the
science & the technology)
– The precision information from LEP and other data have pointed
to a low mass Higgs; Understanding electroweak symmetry
breaking, whether supersymmetry or an alternative, will require
precision measurements.
– There are strong arguments for the complementarity between a
~0.5-1.0 TeV LC and the LHC science.
– Designs and technology demonstrations have matured on two
technical approaches for an e+e- collider that are well matched to
our present understanding of the physics. (We note that a Cband option could have been adequate for a 500 GeV machine, if
NLC/GLC and TESLA were not deemed mature designs).
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
4
LHC/LC Complementarity
The 500 GeV Linear Collider Spin Measurement
LHC should discover the
Higgs
The Higgs must have spin zero
The linear collider will
measure the spin of any
Higgs it can produce.
The process e+e–  HZ can
be used to measure the
spin of a 120 GeV Higgs
particle. The error bars are
based on 20 fb–1 of
luminosity at each point.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
5
LHC/LC Complementarity
Extra Dimensions
Linear collider
New space-time dimensions can
be mapped by studying the
emission of gravitons into the
extra dimensions, together with
a photon or jets emitted into the
normal dimensions.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
6
Why ITRP?
• Two parallel developments over the past few years (the
science & the technology)
– The precision information from LEP and other data have pointed
to a low mass Higgs; Understanding electroweak symmetry
breaking, whether supersymmetry or an alternative, will require
precision measurements.
– There are strong arguments for the complementarity between a
~0.5-1.0 TeV LC and the LHC science.
– Designs and technology demonstrations have matured on two
technical approaches for an e+e- collider that are well matched to
our present understanding of the physics. (We note that a Cband option could have been adequate for a 500 GeV machine, if
NLC/GLC and TESLA were not deemed mature designs).
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
7
What has the Accelerator R&D Produced?
The Report Validates the
Readiness of L-band and X-band
Concepts
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
8
TESLA Concept
• The main linacs are based
on 1.3 GHz superconducting
technology operating at 2 K.
The cryoplant, of a size
comparable to that of the
LHC, consists of seven
subsystems strung along
the machines every 5 km.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
9
TESLA Cavity
• RF accelerator structures consist of close to
21,000 9-cell niobium cavities operating at
gradients of 23.8 MV/m (unloaded as well as beam
loaded) for 500 GeV c.m. operation.
• The rf pulse length is 1370 µs and the repetition
rate is 5 Hz. At a later stage, the machine energy
may be upgraded to 800 GeV c.m. by raising the
gradient to 35 MV/m.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
10
TESLA Single Tunnel Layout
• The TESLA cavities
are supplied with rf
power in groups of
36 by 572 10 MW
klystrons and
modulators.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
11
GLC/NLC Concept
GLC
7-Oct-04
• The JLC-X and NLC are essentially
a unified single design with
common parameters
• The main linacs are based on 11.4
GHz, room temperature copper
technology.
• The main linacs operate at an
unloaded gradient of 65 MV/m,
beam-loaded to 50 MV/m.
• The rf systems for 500 GeV c.m.
consist of 4064 75 MW Periodic
Permanent Magnet (PPM)
klystrons arranged in groups of 8,
followed by 2032 SLED-II rf pulse
compression systems
ITRP Technology Recommendation
12
GLC / NLC Concept
NLC
• The rf systems and accelerator structures are located in
two parallel tunnels for each linac.
• For 500 GeV c.m. energy, these rf systems and accelerator
structures are only installed in the first 7 km of each linac.
• The upgrade to 1 TeV is obtained by filling the rest of each
linac, for a total two-linac length of 28 km.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
13
JLC – C Band
• The JLC-C is limited to an
rf design using main linacs
running at 5.7 GHz up to
400–500 GeV c.m.
• The unloaded gradient is
about 42 MV/m and the
beam-loaded gradient is
about 32 MV/m, resulting
in a two-linac length at 5.7
GHz of 17 km for a 400
GeV c.m. energy.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
14
CLIC
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
15
Why Decide Technology Now?
• We have an embarrassment of riches !!!!
– Two alternate designs -- “warm” and “cold” have come to
the stage where the show stoppers have been eliminated
and the concepts are well understood.
– R & D is very expensive (especially D) and to move to the
“next step” (being ready to construct such a machine within
about 5 years) will require more money and a concentration
of resources, organization and a worldwide effort.
– A major step toward a decision to construct a new machine
will be enabled by uniting behind one technology, followed
by a making a final global design based on the
recommended technology.
– The final construction decision in ~5 years will be able to
fully take into account early LHC and other physics
developments.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
16
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
17
Preamble to the List of Parameters
Over the past decade, studies in Asia, Europe and North America
have described the scientific case for a future electron-positron
linear collider [1,2,3,4]. A world-wide consensus has formed for a
baseline LC project with centre-of-mass energies up to 500 GeV
and with luminosity above 1034 cm-2s-1 [5].
Beyond this firm baseline machine, several upgrades and options
are envisaged whose weight, priority and realization will depend
upon the results obtained at the LHC and the baseline LC.
This document, prepared by the Parameters Subcommittee of the
International Linear Collider Steering Committee, provides a set
of parameters for the future Linear Collider and the
corresponding values needed to achieve the anticipated physics
program.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
18
The ITRP Members
Jean-Eudes Augustin (FRANCE)
Jonathan Bagger (USA)
Barry Barish (USA) - Chair
Giorgio Bellettini (ITALY)
Paul Grannis (USA)
Norbert Holtkamp (USA)
George Kalmus (UK)
Gyung-Su Lee (KOREA)
Akira Masaike (JAPAN)
Katsunobu Oide (JAPAN)
Volker Soergel (Germany)
Hirotaka Sugawara (JAPAN)
David Plane - Scientific Secretary
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
19
ITRP Schedule of Events
• Six Meetings
– RAL (Jan 27,28 2004)
Tutorial & Planning
– DESY (April 5,6 2004)
– SLAC (April 26,27 2004)
Site Visits
– KEK (May 25,26 2004)
– Caltech (June 28,29,30 2004)
– Korea (August 11,12,13)
– ILCSC / ICFA (Aug 19)
– ILCSC (Sept 20)
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
Deliberations
Recommendation
Exec. Summary
Final Report
20
Arriving in Korea
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
21
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
22
ITRP in Korea
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
23
Our Process
• We studied and evaluated a large amount of
available materials
• We made site visits to DESY, KEK and SLAC to listen
to presentations on the competing technologies and
to see the test facilities first-hand.
• We have also heard presentations on both C-band
and CLIC technologies
• We interacted with the community at LC workshops,
individually and through various communications we
received
• We developed a set of evaluation criteria (a matrix)
and had each proponent answer a related set of
questions to facilitate our evaluations.
• We assigned lots of internal homework to help guide
our discussions and
evaluations
24
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
What that Entailed
– We each traveled at least 75,000 miles
– We read approximately 3000 pages
– We had constant interactions with the community and
with each other
– We gave up a good part of our “normal day jobs” for six
months
– We had almost 100% attendance by all members at all
meetings
– We worked incredibly hard to “turn over every rock” we
could find.
from Norbert Holtkamp
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
25
The Charge to the International
Technology Recommendation Panel
General Considerations
The International Technology Recommendation Panel (the Panel)
should recommend a Linear Collider (LC) technology to the
International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC).
On the assumption that a linear collider construction commences
before 2010 and given the assessment by the ITRC that both
TESLA and JLC-X/NLC have rather mature conceptual designs,
the choice should be between these two designs. If necessary, a
solution incorporating C-band technology should be evaluated.
Note -- We have interpreted our charge as being to
recommend a technology, rather than choose a design
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
26
Evaluating the Criteria Matrix
• We analyzed the technology choice through studying a
matrix having six general categories with specific
items under each:
–
–
–
–
–
–
the scope and parameters specified by the ILCSC;
technical issues;
cost issues;
schedule issues;
physics operation issues;
and more general considerations that reflect the impact of the
LC on science, technology and society
• We evaluated each of these categories with the help of
answers to our “questions to the proponents,” internal
assignments and reviews, plus our own discussions
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
27
Evaluation: Scope and Parameters
• The Parameters Document describes a machine with
physics operation between 200 and 500 GeV.
– The luminosity of this machine must be sufficient to acquire
500 fb-1 of luminosity in four years of running, after an initial
year of commissioning.
– The baseline machine must be such that its energy can be
upgraded to approximately 1 TeV, as required by physics.
– The upgraded machine should have luminosity sufficient to
acquire 1 ab-1 in an additional three or four years of running.
• The ITRP evaluated each technology in the light of
these requirements, which reflect the science goals of
the machine. It examined technical, cost, schedule
and operational issues.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
28
Evaluation: Scope and Parameters
• The Panel’s general conclusion was that each
technology would be capable, in time, of achieving the
goals set forth in the Parameters Document.
• The Panel felt that the energy goals could be met by
either technology.
– The higher accelerating gradient of the warm technology
would allow for a shorter main linac.
• The luminosity goals were deemed to be aggressive,
with technical and schedule risk in each case.
– On balance, the Panel judged the cold technology to be better
able to provide stable beam conditions, and therefore more
likely to achieve the necessary luminosity in a timely manner.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
29
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• The Panel was gratified to see the C-band progress
– The C-band technology was originally conceived as an
alternative to X-band for acceleration up to 500 GeV.
– The technology is feasible and can be readily transferred to
industry, with applications in science (XFELs) and industry (e.g.
medical accelerators).
Spring-8 Compact SASE Source
Low Emittance InjectorHigh Gradient AcceleratorShort Period Undulator
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
30
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• Compact LInear Collider Study (CLIC)
The main linac rf power is produced
by decelerating a high-current (150
A) low-energy (2.1 GeV) drive beam
In the short (300 m), low-frequency
drive beam accelerator, a long beam
pulse is efficiently accelerated in
fully loaded structures.
• The Panel was impressed with the state of CLIC R&D.
– CLIC will face many challenges to demonstrate the feasibility of
high-current beam-derived rf generation.
7-Oct-04
Technology
Recommendation
– A vigorous effort toITRP
attack
these
issues at CTF3 at CERN. 31
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• The Panel evaluated the main linacs and subsystems
for X-band and L-band to identify performance-limiting
factors for construction and commissioning.
– In general, the Panel found the LC R&D to be far advanced.
The global R&D effort uncovered a variety of issues that were
mitigated through updated designs.
Evolution of RF Unit Scheme
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
32
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• For the warm technology, major subsystems were built
to study actual performance.
– The KEK damping ring was constructed to demonstrate the
generation and damping of a high-intensity bunch train at the
required emittance, together with its extraction with sufficient
stability.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
33
Experimental Test Facility - KEK
• Prototype Damping Ring for X-band Linear Collider
• Development of Beam Instrumentation and Control
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
34
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• For the warm technology, major subsystems were built
to study actual performance.
– The KEK damping ring was constructed to demonstrate the
generation and damping of a high-intensity bunch train at the
required emittance, together with its extraction with sufficient
stability.
– The Final Focus Test Beam at SLAC was constructed to
demonstrate demagnification of a beam accelerated in the
linac.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
35
Evaluation: Technical Issues
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
36
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• For the warm technology, major subsystems were built
to study actual performance.
– The KEK damping ring was constructed to demonstrate the
generation and damping of a high-intensity bunch train at the
required emittance, together with its extraction with sufficient
stability.
– The Final Focus Test Beam at SLAC was constructed to
demonstrate demagnification of a beam accelerated in the
linac.
– As a result, the subsystem designs are more advanced for the
warm technology.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
37
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• In general, the cold technology carries higher risk in
the accelerator subsystems other than the linacs,
while the warm technology has higher risk in the main
linacs and their individual components.
• The accelerating structures have risks that were
deemed to be comparable in the two technologies.
– The warm X-band structures require demonstration of their
ability to run safely at high gradients for long periods of time.
– The cold superconducting cryomodules need to show that
they can manage field emission at high gradients.
• For the cold, industrialization of the main linac
components and rf systems is now well advanced.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
38
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• Superconducting RF Linac Concept demonstrated in
TESLA Test Facility
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
39
TESLA Test Facility Linac
e- beam
diagnostics
undulator
photon beam
diagnostics
240 MeV
7-Oct-04
bunch
compressor
superconducting accelerator
modules
120 MeV
ITRP Technology Recommendation
e- beam
diagnostics
laser driven
electron gun
preaccelerator
16 MeV
4 MeV
40
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• Superconducting RF Linac Concept demonstrated in
TESLA Test Facility
• Many cold technology components will be tested over
the coming few years in a reasonably large-scale
prototype
through
construction
of
the
superconducting XFEL at DESY.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
41
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• Superconducting RF Linac Concept demonstrated in
TESLA Test Facility
• Many cold technology components will be tested over
the coming few years in a reasonably large-scale
prototype
through
construction
of
the
superconducting XFEL at DESY.
• A superconducting linac has high intrinsic efficiency
for beam acceleration, which leads to lower power
consumption.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
42
Site power: 140 MW
Linac: 97MW
Sub-systems: 43MW
RF:
76MW
Cryogenics:
78%
65%
7-Oct-04
Power Usage
TESLA Design
60%
21MW
Beam:
22.6MW
ITRP Technology Recommendation
Injectors
Damping rings
Water,
ventilation, …
43
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• The
lower
accelerating
gradient
in
the
superconducting cavities implies that the length of the
main linac in a cold machine is greater than it would be
in a warm machine of the same energy.
• Future R&D must stress ways to extend the energy
reach to 1 TeV, and even somewhat beyond.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
44
Electro-polishing
(Improve surface quality -- pioneering work done at KEK)
BCP
EP
• Several single cell cavities at g > 40 MV/m
• 4 nine-cell cavities at ~35 MV/m, one at 40 MV/m
• Theoretical Limit 50 MV/m
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
45
New Cavity Shape for Higher Gradient?
TESLA Cavity
Alternate Shapes
• A new cavity shape with a small Hp/Eacc ratio around
35Oe/(MV/m) must be designed.
- Hp is a surface peak magnetic field and Eacc is the electric
field gradient on the beam axis.
- For such a low field ratio, the volume occupied by magnetic
field in the cell must be increased and the magnetic density
must be reduced.
- This generally means a smaller bore radius.
- There are trade-offs (eg. Electropolishing, weak cell-to-cell
coupling, etc)
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
46
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• In a superconducting rf structure, the rf pulse length,
the length of the bunch train, and interbunch time
interval are all large. This offers many advantages.
• The disadvantages are mainly related to the complex
and very long damping rings, and the large heat load
on the production target for a conventional positron
source, which might require a novel source design.
– Storage rings are among the best-understood accelerator
subsystems today, and much of this knowledge can be
transferred to the linear collider damping rings.
– Beam dynamics issues such as instabilities, ion effects, and
intrabeam scattering have been well studied in those
machines.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
47
Evaluation: Technical Issues
• Achieving design luminosity will be a critical measure
of the collider’s success. A number of arguments
indicate it will be easier with the cold technology.
– The cold technology permits greater tolerance to beam
misalignments and other wakefield-related effects.
– Natural advantage in emittance preservation because the
wakefields are orders of magnitude smaller
– The long bunch spacing eliminates multi-bunch effects and
eases the application of feedback systems.
– This feedback will facilitate the alignment of the nanometer
beams at the collision point.
• For these reasons, we deem the cold machine to be
more robust, even considering the inaccessibility of
accelerating components within the cryogenic system.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
48
Evaluation: Cost Issues
• The Panel spent considerable effort gathering and
analyzing all information that is available regarding the
total costs and the relative costs of the two options.
• At the present conceptual and pre-industrialized stage
of the linear collider project, uncertainties in estimating
the total costs are necessarily large.
• Although it might be thought that relative costing could
be done with more certainty, there are additional
complications in determining even the relative costs of
the warm and cold technologies because of differences
in design choices and differences in costing methods
used in different regions.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
49
Evaluation: Cost Issues
• Some of the important contributors to the uncertainties
are:
– Design and implementation plans for important technological
components of each machine are in a preliminary state.
– Differences in design philosophy by the proponents lead to
differences in construction cost, as well as final performance.
These cannot be resolved until a global and integrated design
exists.
– Assumptions about industrialization/learning curves for some
key components have large uncertainties at this early stage in
the design.
– Present cost estimates have some regional philosophies or
prejudices regarding how the project will be industrialized.
Contingency accounting, management overheads, staff costs
for construction and R&D costs for components are all treated
differently; this adds uncertainty to cost comparisons.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
50
Evaluation: Cost Issues
• Some of the important contributors to the uncertainties
are: (continued)
– In an international project, the procurement of substantial parts
of the collider will be from outside the regions that prepared the
present estimates, and this can considerably alter the costs.
– The costs of operating the accelerator are also difficult to
determine at this stage without a better definition of the
reliability, access and staffing requirements, as well as the cost
of power and component replacement.
• As a result of these considerations, the Panel
concluded that comparable warm and cold machines, in
terms of energy and luminosity, have total construction
and lifetime operations costs that are within the present
margin of errors of each other.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
51
Evaluation: Schedule Issues
• In accordance with our charge, we assumed that LC
construction would start before 2010, and that it would
be preceded by a coordinated, globally collaborative
effort of research, development, and engineering
design.
• Based on our assessment of the technical readiness of
both designs, we concluded that the technology choice
will not significantly affect the likelihood of meeting the
construction start milestone.
• We believe that the issues that will drive the schedule
are primarily of a non-technical nature.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
52
Evaluation: Physics Operations Issues
• Several factors favor the cold machine:
– The long separation between bunches in a cold machine allows
full integration of detector signals after each bunch crossing. In
a warm machine, the pileup of energy from multiple bunch
crossings is a potential problem, particularly in forward
directions.
– The energy spread is somewhat smaller for the cold machine,
which leads to better precision for measuring particle masses.
– If desired, in a cold machine the beams can be collided head-on
in one of the interaction regions. Zero crossing angle might
simplify shielding from background.
– a nonzero crossing angle permits the measurement of beam
properties before and after the collision, giving added
constraints on the determination of energy and polarization at
the crossing point.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
53
Evaluation: General
Considerations
• Linear collider R&D affects other scientific areas
– the development of high-gradient superconducting cavities is a
breakthrough that will find applications in light sources and Xray free electron lasers, as well as in accelerators for intense
neutrino sources, nuclear physics, and materials science.
– New light sources and XFELs will open new opportunities in
biology and material sciences.
– The superconducting XFEL to be constructed at DESY is a
direct spin-off from linear collider R&D.
– the R&D work done for the X-band rf technology is of great
interest for accelerators used as radiation sources in medical
applications, as well as for radar sources used in aircraft, ships
and satellites, and other applications.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
54
The Recommendation
• We recommend that the linear collider be based
on superconducting rf technology
– This recommendation is made with the understanding that we
are recommending a technology, not a design. We expect the
final design to be developed by a team drawn from the
combined warm and cold linear collider communities, taking full
advantage of the experience and expertise of both (from the
Executive Summary).
– The superconducting technology has several very nice features
for application to a linear collider. They follow in part from the
55
7-Oct-04
low rf frequency. ITRP Technology Recommendation
Some of the Features of SC Technology
• The large cavity aperture and long bunch interval
reduce the complexity of operations, reduce the
sensitivity to ground motion, permit inter-bunch
feedback and may enable increased beam current.
• The main linac rf systems, the single largest technical
cost elements, are of comparatively lower risk.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
56
TESLA Cost estimate500GeV LC, one e+e- IP
3,136 M€
(no contingency, year ~2000)
+ ~7000 person years
33 km
Power Water & Cryogenic Plants
e- Sources
e- Beam delivery
e- Main LINAC
PreLinac
DESY site
e+ Source PreLinac
e- Damping Ring
e+ Beam Transport
e+ Beam delivery
Beam Dumps
e+ Damping Ring
e+ Main LINAC
Westerhorn
e- Beam Transport XFEL
TESLA machine schematic view
e- Switchyard XFEL
1131 Million Euro
HEP & XFEL
Experiments
Machine cost distribution
587
546
336
241
Main LINAC Main LINAC
Modules
RF System
7-Oct-04
Civil
Machine
X FEL
Engineering Infrastructure Incrementals
215
Damping
Rings
ITRP Technology Recommendation
124
101
97
Auxiliary
Systems
HEP Beam
Delivery
Injection
System
57
Some of the Features of SC Technology
• The large cavity aperture and long bunch interval
reduce the complexity of operations, reduce the
sensitivity to ground motion, permit inter-bunch
feedback and may enable increased beam current.
• The main linac rf systems, the single largest technical
cost elements, are of comparatively lower risk.
• The construction of the superconducting XFEL free
electron laser will provide prototypes and test many
aspects of the linac.
• The industrialization of most major components of the
linac is underway.
• The use of superconducting cavities significantly
reduces power consumption.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
58
The ITRP Recommendation
• The ITRP recommendation was presented to ILCSC
& ICFA on August 19 in a joint meeting in Beijing.
• ICFA unanimously endorsed the ITRP’s
recommendation on August 20 and J. Dorfan
announced the result at the IHEP Conference
• The ITRP recommendation was discussed and
endorsed at FALC (Funding Agencies for the Linear
Collider) on September 17 at CERN.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
59
Meeting of Funding Agencies to discuss the status and funding
prospects for a linear collider of 0.5 to 1TeV. Fourth meeting held
at CERN on 17 September 2004
1. The fourth meeting of representatives from CERN (President of
Council and DG), Canada (NSERC), France (CNRS), Germany
(BMBF), India (DAE, DST), Italy (INFN), Japan (MEXT), Korea
(MOST), UK (PPARC) and the US (DOE, NSF) was held at CERN on
17 September 2004.
2. The Group received a presentation from Professor Barish, chair of the
International Technology Review Panel (ITRP). He outlined the
process followed to reach a recommendation on the technology for a
0.5 to 1TeV linear collider and the primary reasons for the choice of
the superconducting rf technology. The Funding Agencies praised the
clear choice by ICFA. This recommendation will lead to focusing of the
global R& D effort for the linear collider and the Funding Agencies look
forward to assisting in this process. The Funding Agencies see this
recommendation to use superconducting rf technology as a critical
step in moving forward to the design of a linear collider.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
60
The ITRP Recommendation
• The ITRP recommendation was presented to ILCSC
& ICFA on August 19 in a joint meeting in Beijing.
• ICFA unanimously endorsed the ITRP’s
recommendation on August 20 and J. Dorfan
announced the result at the IHEP Conference
• The ITRP recommendation was discussed and
endorsed at FALC (Funding Agencies for the Linear
Collider) on September 17 at CERN.
• The final report of ITRP was submitted to ILCSC on
September 20 and is now available.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
61
What’s Next?
• A new global design based on superconducting rf
technology will be initiated by the combined warm
and cold experts.
• We need to fully capitalize on the experience from
SLC, FFTB, ATF and TTF as we move forward. The
range of systems from sources to beam delivery in a
LC is so broad that an optimized design can only
emerge by pooling the expertise of all participants.
• The R&D leading to a final design for the ILC will be
coordinated by an International Central Design Team,
which the ITRP endorses.
• The first collaboration meeting will be at KEK in
November.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
62
The U.S. Effort on the ILC
• Coordination of the distributed design effort is
envisaged to proceed via three regional
coordinators, who will be chosen by the regional
steering committees in consultation with their
respective funding agencies and the GDE Director.
• This is a major and exciting step forward taken by
the international community to realize a TeV e+ecollider.
• Strong regional coordination is anticipated:
– In North America, SLAC and FNAL are offering to act as
co-coordinating centers for the regional effort.
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
63
SLAC - Looking Forward
• The SLAC linear collider team has embraced the ITRP
process from the beginning, and is joining in the worldwide
effort for R&D and design of the ILC.
• SLAC has been the center of the U.S. linear collider R&D
effort. They bring critical skills, experience and insights
essential to the U.S. effort to design the ILC.
• Much of the design and R&D carried out for the "warm"
machine directly applies to the ILC "cold" technology
design - including the Main Linac, and ranging from Beam
Sources to the Interaction Region and Detector
• SLAC was committed to playing a leadership role for the
NLC, and remains so for the ILC. They are already forming
plans their technical roles in the ILC design effort
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
64
• NLC
Fermilab ILC Efforts to
Date
– X-band structures fabrication
• 5 of the 8 structures at successful
NLCTA test were built by Fermilab
– Civil/siting studies
• SCRF
– Operation of 15 MeV photoinjector
(identical to TTF injector)
– SCRF cavity development for FNPL and
CKM (now defunct)
• Extremely talented scientific &
engineering group in place with ability
to work on warm or cold structures
 Bottom line: By redirecting X-band and focusing SCRF
more strongly on ILC, Fermilab can effectively double
resources
in FY05. ITRP Technology Recommendation
65
7-Oct-04
Fermilab Plan
• It is essential to establish U.S. capability in the
fabrication of high gradient SRF structures.
– Fermilab commitment to provide U.S. leadership following
cold decision
• Focus has been on a test facility at Fermilab (aka
SMTF—Superconducting Module Test Facility).
– Interested partners: ANL, BNL, Cornell, FNAL, JLab, LANL,
LBNL, MIT, MSU, ORNL, SLAC
• Concept of a possible evolution:
2005-06
2008-…
Possible ILC test bed
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation
66
Remarks and Next Steps
• The linear collider will be designed to begin operation
at 500 GeV, with a capability for an upgrade to about 1
TeV, as the physics requires. This capability is an
essential feature of the design. Therefore we urge that
part of the global R&D and design effort be focused on
increasing the ultimate collider energy to the maximum
extent feasible. (from ITRP Exec Summary)
• A TeV scale electron-positron linear collider is an
essential part of a grand adventure that will provide
new insights into the structure of space, time, matter
and energy. We believe that the technology for
achieving this goal is now in hand, and that the
prospects for its success are extraordinarily bright.
(from
ITRP Exec Summary)
67
7-Oct-04
ITRP Technology Recommendation